Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.

Q: What court decided Gate Gourmet?

Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. was decided by the State Appellate Court in 2013.

Q: Who won Gate Gourmet?

The outcome in Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. was: Pending. The case raises the issue of whether a failure to make reasonable accommodation for an employee's sincere religious beliefs is implied in the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Q: What legal issues are involved in Gate Gourmet?

Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. involves the following religious liberty issues: Free Exercise, Workplace Accommodation.

The case raises the issue of whether a failure to make reasonable accommodation for an employee’s sincere religious beliefs is implied in the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

ReligiousLiberty.TV

March 3, 2026

0 min read

Year: 2013 Court: State Appellate Court Outcome: Pending

Free Exercise Workplace Accommodation

Holding: The case raises the issue of whether a failure to make reasonable accommodation for an employee's sincere religious beliefs is implied in the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

📄 Read Opinion Article link

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF 📄 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF 📄 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF 📄 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF

Washington Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether State Law Requires Religious Accommodation October 30, 2013

Primary coverage 📎 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF 📎 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF 📎 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF 📎 rosenberglawgroup.net PDF

Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. is a Free Exercise case decided by the State Appellate Court in 2013. The court held that the case raises the issue of whether a failure to make reasonable accommodation for an employee's sincere religious beliefs is implied in the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The case resulted in a Pending outcome.

1
Mahmoud v. Taylor606 U.S. 522 (2025)
5
U.S. Supreme Court
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children without state interference.
📄 Opinion available
2
Roake v. BrumleyNo. 24-30 (2026)
2
Anti-Religion
A preliminary injunction blocking Louisiana's Ten Commandments display law is vacated because plaintiffs' legal challenge is not yet…
📄 Opinion available
3
Gilfillan v. City of Philadelphia637 F.2d 924 (1980)
2
Philadelphia violated the Establishment Clause by spending taxpayer funds to build a platform for a papal mass and…
📄 Opinion available
4
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.573 U.S. 682 (2014)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Religious liberty protections under RFRA apply to closely held for-profit corporations.
📄 Opinion available
5
Hubersberger v. State2 CA-CV 2025-0188 (2026)
1
Religious motivation does not provide immunity from neutral criminal laws protecting private property; the state may prosecute trespassers…
📄 Opinion available
6
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District(2026)
1
Pending
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reconsidering whether Texas can mandate Ten Commandments displays in public…
7
Kimberly Ann Polk v. Montgomery County Board of Education
1
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a substitute teacher's lawsuit challenging a school district…
8
United States v. Don Lemon(2026)
1
U.S. District Court
Pending
The government indicted Don Lemon under the FACE Act for alleged coordination in disrupting religious worship, though judges…
9
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. DoeNo. 24-856 (2026)
1
U.S. Supreme Court
Pending
The Court must determine if U.S. corporations can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim…
📄 Opinion available
10
Satanic Temple, Inc. v. RokitaNo. 23-3247 (2026)
1
The Satanic Temple lacks associational standing to challenge Indiana's abortion ban because it failed to identify specific injured…
📄 Opinion available